10, Bernard of Clairvaux 9, John Chrysostom 8, Jerome/Hieronymus 7, Thomas Aquinus 6, William Perkins 5, Anselm of Canterbury 4, Martin Luther 3, Athanasius of Alexandria 2, John Calvin 1, Augustine of Hippo
What a fantastic list! As a new novice to church history and Reformed theology I found this list brilliant as some of these men I had simply never heard of before. Thanks so much!
I was raised in a Christian home and loosely followed along with what I was taught but never truly delving into theology. Now I’m on a journey to learn more about the truth and thought I should begin with the greatest or most influential theologians of all time - so thank you for this video! That, and the comments it has spawned gives me a plenty-big reading list.
10. Richard Sibbes 9. John Flavel 8. Cornelius Van Til 7. Francis Turretin 6. Wilhelmus a Brakel 5. R.C. Sproul 4.Jonathan Edwards 3.John Calvin 2.John Owen 1. Herman Bavinck
My doctoral dissertation was entitled "Discovering the Theology of Jacob Arminius" This means, of course, I would eliminate Perkins, Calvin, et al. Augustine wavered on his view of justification by faith. Apart from his "City of God" (a good read), I believe he derived a great deal of his theology from his early fascination with Manichaean with its evil and good perspectives. Your unbiased list would include Arminius!!!
I have read Arminius, though I am certainly not an expert. His "Reformed" Arminianism is more mild than Wesley's and certainly not as extreme as Semi-Pelagianism. Though there is no such thing as an unbiased list (and certainly my is very bias) I am not sure Arminius should be on the list. Clearly, his theology is very common in the modern period, however, he is not that well read even by modern Arminians.
Arminus is cool. His followers don’t seem to have read his works. And they’ll drive away anyone who didn’t grow up Arminian from even giving his ideas a shot. The only people who’d risk calling God a rapist are Arminian, so that a hard pass for me ever considering them anything other than blasphemous or at least toolbags tbh. Even if I don’t agree with a theology, unless it’s Jehovah Witness, or Mormon, or some other straight up cult la theology I’d never risk calling God a rapist. Sick really.
I have to admit, I was genuinely shocked (and pleasantly so) when I saw your list. For the most part, I'd agree with the vast majority of your list. Here's my list (not really ranked necessarily, especially toward to bottom of the list, although I do have to put the "Three A's" right at the top): 1. Athanasius 2. Augustine 3. Aquinas 4. John Henry Newman 5. C.S. Lewis (some may argue if he was a theologian in the strict sense, but I've found his works invaluable over the years) 6. Ambrose 7. Eusebius (again, not so much a theologian as a historian, but his writings are vital for documenting that era in the church) 8. Peter Kreeft (more of a philosopher if we're splitting hairs, but I've come this far) 9. Dietrich Bonhoeffer 10. Irenaeus Honorable mention to Nicolas of Myra for laying the smackdown on Arius of Alexandria during the first Nicene Council. I don't advocate violence, but in this instance, ol' Arry needed a good slap for the damage he was doing to people's faith.
Interesting list, thank you. I am a huge C.S. Lewis fan too. As you pointed out he is not technically a theologian, which he himself admitted, however, I cannot think of any other 20th century Christian who had more of an impact.
I like the list except for Bonhoeffer, dude was a heretic, we need to stop praising him. Putting him on the list and not Luther or Calvin is delusional.
@@puritanbob Bonhoeffer did not believe in substitutionary atonement - that Christ suffering as a substitute for our sins, dying in our place to earn eternal life for us. The cross of Christ certainly is important to him, but in a very different way - it is as an example and an inspiration. He also did not belief in a 6 day creation. Yes he was a Heretic in the worst way. However easy to spot.
It would be very helpful to start with what a theologian is and does, and who tells them they're good at it. My first argument on this - that it's chiefly creative writing - was with a Passionist nun 55 years ago and I haven't changed my mind yet.
@@flowerlass Jonathan Edwards Absolutely. Most historians consider Jonathan Edwards, a Northampton Anglican minister, one of the chief fathers of the Great Awakening. Edwards’ message centered around the ideas that humans were sinners, God was an angry judge and individuals needed to ask for forgiveness. He also preached justification by faith alone. In 1741, Edwards gave an emotional sermon, entitled “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” No-one in the church had dry eyes. It was not the gifted preacher because Edwards read most of the sermon. It was a strong conviction of the Holy Spirit. News of the message spread quickly throughout the colonies. Edwards was known for his passion. He generally preached in his home parish, unlike other revival preachers who traveled throughout the colonies. Edwards is credited for inspiring hundreds of conversions, which he documented in a book, Narratives of Surprising Conversions. George Whitefield, a minister from Britain, had a significant impact during the Great Awakening. Whitefield toured the colonies up and down the Atlantic coast, preaching his message. In one year, Whitefield covered 5,000 miles in America and preached more than 350 times.
I was referring to theologians post Scripture. Obviously the prophets and apostles are in a different category with their works being without error and canon.
@@timothy4557 I’ve been to seminars known scholars and theologian from the Christian faith proved it. But they rely and have faith on Paul’s writing . Which should be disturbing because who are y’all following God or Paul
I love this list. Learned a lot about theologians I already love. I would disagree with your assessment about Anselm with regard to the atonement. He absolutely returned an emphasis on the substitutionary nature of the atonement. However, I would say that the Christian East doesn’t have an unbiblical view but a different set of theological emphases. For me, the atonement in the Scriptures are more like a kaleidoscope of beautiful meaning than Scripture having ONE major view. I know it’s a disputed topic. Interestingly, no early Church creed ever defined this matter.
Thank you for the kind reply. I agree, the East has a very different understanding. And yes, there are many different sides to the atonement, however, denial of penal substitution is highly problematic.
You're wrong! I even did not know whom are you talking about. 1. Gamaliel the first theologian, 2. Paul of Tarsus, and 3. James brother of Jesus. I think you do not know what you're talking about.
Interesting list Automatically my mind would go to favorite vers greatest. I am a little surprised that Johnathon Edward's name was excluded.Ive read through his writings many times and his teaching on Freedom Of The Will is especially noteworthy. I also would argue for the inclusion of James Arminius. Whereas im a Calvinist, but it was incredibly influential.
Strangely, as a conservative Congregational pastor, I do not like Edwards that much. Too much Pietism for my blood, though there is no doubt he has had a huge influence. True, Arminius' teaching has had a great influence, however, he is not that widely read. Thank you for the reply!
@@SimplyReformed I read and have all the works of Arminius. His not Latinized name was Jacob Hermanszoon. I have a major problems with his doctrine and special his twists in his Commentaries on The Letter to the Romans. He claims that God's Plan of Salvation came after the fall in Paradise otherwise God would be the Author of sin. Also his claim was that Paul said before his conversion: "Wretched man I' am" , and would not have said after his conversion. His Decisional Regeneration has miss-leaded Millions. His errors special came up at the Synod of Dodrecht when he already had died. Dirck Volckertszoon Coornherd defended the Arminian position, of the denial of God's Omniscience. That is not a great Theologian but a ignorant anti scripture heretic. Initially he was asked to oppose Dirck Coornherd as Student of Beza but he turned and agreed with Dirck Coornherd. I'm not a Calvinist but Reformed. The reformation was much broader than Calvin. I also have and Studied and agree with Calvin's Institutes. I also have a Serie of 8 books with sermons of Calvin. THIS IS HOW CALVIN PREACHED THE GOSPEL (Calvin's Wisdom p119-120) He calls all men to himself, without a single exception, and gives Christ to all, that we may be illumined by him. When we pray, we ought, according to the rule of charity, to include all. God invites all indiscriminately to salvation through the Gospel, BUT THE INGRATITUDE OF THE WORLD IS THE REASON why this grace, which is equally offered to all, is enjoyed by few. Other than the result of men’s refusal. Calvin as you can see and put the responsibility by men. “The word many is not put definitely for a fixed number, but for a large number; for he contrasts himself with all others. And in this sense it is used in Romans 5:15, where Paul does not speak of any part of men, but embraces the whole human race.” [Calvin’s Commentary on Matthew 20:28] “For he intended expressly to state [in John 3:16] that, though we appear to have been born to death, undoubted deliverance is offered to us by the faith of Christ; and, therefore, that we ought not to fear death, which otherwise hangs over us. And he has employed the universal term whosoever, both to invite all indiscriminately to partake of life, and to cut off every excuse from unbelievers. Such is also the import of the term World, which he formerly used; for though nothing will be found in the world that is worthy of the favour of God, YET HE SHOWS HIMSELF TO BE RECONCILED TO THE WHOLE WORLD, when he invites all men without exception to faith in Christ, which is nothing else than an entrance into life.” (Calvin’s Commentary on the Gospel of John)
What about Jonathan Edwards? Any top ten list without JE is way off the mark. I do agree with most of your picks though. Another good one, though probably not a top ten, is Herman Bavinck. His four volume Reformed Dogmatics is outstanding, and he has many other great works. He’s not as well known as the other theologians you mentioned, but a great one nonetheless.
Thank you for the comment. There are a lot of people I left off the list. Personally, I am quite upset that John Owen didn't make it. I was toying with making a 11-20 just for fun. I agree, Bavinck, is amazing. About Edwards, however, I'm not a big fan, which is strange for a conservative Congregational minister to say. Yes, he was brilliant and devout. Yes, he had a huge impact on American theology. However, I find him too Pietistic and too a-historical and a-creedal. (Though I have the Yale series on his works and have read a majority of it.) You probably shouldn't watch my "Top Ten Congregationalists" video.
@@JosephsCoat John Owen was a Congregationalist. Of all the people on the list I wrestled the most about him. It came down to either Perkins or Owen. I think Perkins has had more of an impact then Owen, though I have a picture of Owen on my wall and not Perkins.
@@SimplyReformed I recognize that Owen was a paedobaptist congregationalist; nevertheless, Owen’s writing influenced Baptist covenant theology probably more than any other single writer.
@@SimplyReformed it’s the same with me in Theology I’m just now getting into Theology. Here’s my list of theologians. 10. John Wycliffe very influential. 9. Irenaeus. 8. Jonathan Edwards. And John Knox 7. Jerome 6. Thomas Aquinas 5. Athanasius of Alexandria. 4. Martin Luther. 3. John Calvin. 2. Anselm of Canterbury. 1. Augustine. Here’s philosophers. 10. David Hume. 9. Anselm of Canterbury 8. Confucius. 7. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 6. Renee Descartes 5. Thomas Aquinas. 4. Socrates. 3 Augustine of hippo. 2. Plato. 1 Aristotle. 3.
@@SimplyReformed I thought Edwards was a philosopher? I agree, The definition from Google is a person who engages in philosophy or specializes in philosophy from an academic level.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 The simple definition is that religion is about obtaining knowledge through revelation and philosophy through logical thinking. Of course they blur together. It does help if the theologian is very hostile to philosophy (e.g. Luther), however, all theologians are a little skeptical of philosophy, even Aquinas. I guess the difference is how skeptical. If you are "scholastic" (e.g. Aquinas, Edwards) you are also a philosopher. If you are more exclusively focused on the Bible (e.g. Luther, Calvin) you are "just" a theologian, though Edwards, and probably Aquinas, would be offended.
There is no hard and fast distinction between these terms. Generally, a "theologian", in the narrow sense, is a great systematizer of biblical doctrines. Such great works of theology would be Augustine's "City of God" or Calvin's "Institutes". A preacher is simply a herald, one who proclaims God's word. Though it should be stated "preacher" is a title found in the Bible not "theologian." In the broad sense, however, all Christians are to do "theology", which is simply to study and think about God. Thus all good preachers must do theology.
Whether they take the title of theologian or minister, rabbi, priest, or imam ... in order to preach, they all want followers to believe they know what the supposed god is "thinking." It all started out with ordinary men taking the lofty title of theologians for their personal USE. They taught that showing even the least bit of doubt that a god existed ... could mean eternal damnation for wicked souls. That teaching resulted in humans being terrified to ask questions of the dogmas that the theologians taught. And that left theologians with all the power, to make up any fly by night stories that appealed to their overactive imaginations and get away with it ... because the followers were so utterly terrified of the supposed WRATH of "god." It's up to you to decide what you believe. I decided at age 70 to leave all religious chatter behind. I'm now 83 years of age, and at peace with the idea that the universe in one form or another always existed ... no creator or plan ... and that suffering of all forms of life ... always was ... and is ... natural.
@@junevandermark952 You are lost and on your way to an eternity in Hell where you will be tormented day and night forever. Repent and put your faith in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. May God grant you repentance and eternal life in Christ. That's not fearmongering, it's just truth.
some that i like: martin luther, martin chemnitz, augustine, athanasias, C.F.W Walther, Mikael Agricola, kierkegaard. you might be able to tell that im lutheran :D
I'm a Wesley man , modern enough and able , he kept theology practical for lay people that keep us on the holy road because many will be lost and few there be that find it. It's obvious you are Calvinist and that makes you so predictable like Calvin his theology becomes a straight jacket. . But he could still be great and know great truths about Our God and I'm sure you are a great Christian and brother, love to have a coffee with you Give to Jesus glory
Interesting but some of their teaching fits a reformed theology so no real surprise I suppose. Perhaps the greatest theologian to me is Christ, the Son of God, who is the living word of the Father. Strange how we forget this since without Christ we would not have Christian theology. Next to Christ I would but John, Peter, James and Paul. Just a thought friends.
Thank you for the reply. I intentionally did not include biblical writers, let alone He who is the Incarnate Word, since they are in a different category.
But you didn't like Bernard's book (New Knighthood). Aquinas was a philosopher, mixed philosophy and religion. It didn't work out so well for some who didn't agree with Aristotle (Galileo.) At least you didn't leave Martin Luther out. There's a little church near me, and the pastor's messages every Sunday are so relevant, so simple but so filled with love and the Gospel, he is surely a great theologian. What do you think of St. Francis? Have you done a ten best and worst saints?
If beauty is in the eye of the beholder, then theology is in the mind of the reader. These are all men of great intellect, but several of them are quite far from any true form of evangelicalism. When unsaved reprobate, Roman Catholics can find their own faith in this list you are standing on shaky ground. How John Owen or Jonathan Edwards can be overlooked shows that such a list is purely relative. By the way, not one of those listed is superior to Peter Martyr Vermigli and many many other mighty Christian thinkers.
I am a fan of Peter Martyr too (yes, I know there are two different men of that name). I agonized about not putting Owen on the list, who I am a big fan of. (I decided that Perkins has had more of an influence.) As for Roman Catholics, I believe only Aquinas would truly fit that category. I put him on the list simply for his huge influence on Western thinking. As for Athanasius, Augustine, Anselm and Bernard, they were beloved by the early Reformers, such as Calvin.
@SimplyReformed I apologize if my remarks were too harsh and critical. But you would have to admit there are problems with Bernard Aquinas and Anselm, though these particular men were indeed men of great thought and intellect. I know the late RC Sproul really held Aquinas in high esteem as a Christian thinker. He was particularly impressed with Against the Gentiles. I have the Summa and some of his commentaries, which have good theology and truth. Anselm's ProsLogium is well worth reading and is a work of great genius. 👍 I am all for reading men I know have errors or who are even ardent Roman Catholics the same way the Puritans and Reformers read and studied the Greek and Roman classics. The educational prowess of the Reformers is quite impressive, and no doubt, their knowledge and familiarity of Aristotle and Plato, for example, was a positive role in their lives. See the Intellectual Origins of the European Reformation by Alister McGrath for an outstanding treatment of this subject if you haven't already. God's blessings on you, my brother!
@@michaelfalsia6062 Oh, nothing to apologize for, I appreciate the feed back. I have McGrath's work, it is very enjoyable. I actually was able to take a class with him when I was in the UK, many years ago. Thank you again, blessings.
Of course. How is that opposed to reading mature men in the faith that went before us? Do you listen to your pastor? Do you not read Christian books? Then why not read some of the greatest minds the Lord has raised up in His church?
@@SimplyReformed 1. Sola Scriptura 2. Yes, I listen to my pastor. 3. “And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh. 4. As you have promoted a number of Romish theologians along with Calvin; you have exposed your blindness to the Word of God. I was a Reformed, Calvinist, Presbyterian for 57 of my 63 years. I am well versed in the Westminster Standards, the creeds, Calvin’s Institutes, City of God etc. These writings of mature learned men are just that, writings of men. Once you get away from Scripture and spend time in these books, you develop a tendency to debate which leads to arguments, which leads to fractioning the Church. Jesus never wanted divisions in His Church. Paul is consistent in his views on this as well. Romish and denominal churches have lost their first love and replaced it with a Pope and Calvin/Luther/Sproul/ etc. These men were/are not humble. Micah 6:8.
@@sweynforkbeardtraindude 1) Amen! We agree about that critical biblical doctrine as defended by the great Protestant thinkers like Luther and Calvin. 2) Good. Is it a sin for your pastor to write a book? 3) True, Solomon does teach about the dangers of over doing academics. However, I am thankful that people like Paul and Peter did write books and that later generations of pastors also wrote books. 4) I do not promote Roman Catholics, however, I do acknowledge their influence on the church. 5) If you say you have no tradition then you are blind to it.
Perhaps some time spent on comparative mythology would be wise. I can name several biblical stories that are absolutely copied from much older myths Samson and Hercules, book of Esther and Ishtar, Noah and Gilgamesh and many more.. How about read Psalm 104 right next to the Egyptian "hymn to aten* it's almost word for word. Instead of investing so much time reading people who just echo what you've been taught to think spend some trying to poke holes in it.. See if it holds water.. read about that other dying and rising gods like Odin Mithras Krishna Osiris Persephone Orpheus innana Perseus Hercules Dionysus Attis theseus ba'al and many more who also conquer death... Have you ever considered they might be copying older myths and changing names because they're important for their allegorical value?? I've never read a book on theology because I've been initiated and have access to the oral tradition and while you'll just brush off this comment I assure you it's true.. There's incredible value in Scripture but very little if any in it's literal meaning.. there's only one way to conquer death my friend and that's to "know thyself" directly experience that part of you that's divine . You conquer death by knowing... Not believing but knowing who you truly are.. You're the main character you're the one who"dies" and is resurrected.. The myths tell you how . It's a mental process, I don't follow the Christian mysteries but I can easily see what symbols they use because I already know the way.. the crucifixion is what we call the unification of opposites.. Two thieves one accepts him (feminine) one rejects him (masculine) but the Christ (anointing) is the balance between the two (a cross) .. As i said it's a mental process which of course why Jesus was crucified on Golgotha.. The place of the skull.. . Jesus isn't the greatest story ever told.. It's the only story ever told 🙏
There are significant omissions. Why have Bernard of Clairveaux when you can have Pierre Abelard? Why have Calvin when you can have Arminius? Why have Luther when you can have Erasmus? Why have Augustine when you can have Ambrose or even John Cassian? St. Irenaeus is missing as is St. Photius. Kurt Gödel is also missing. So is Boethius. Let us not forget Sts. Cyril & Methodius who produced the Church Slavonic Bible. I feel that Augustine of Hippo is highly overrated, a Minor League Benchwarmer whose importance does not exceed St. Vitalius of Gaza. St. Jerome is nothing without St. Irenaeus. You did get a couple right like St. Athanasius and St. John Chrysostom,
Augustine #1 for sure, anyone who disagrees is just wrong and probably in some sort of cage stage. Aquinas should be higher, but a very reasonable list otherwise.
It's good to see so many Catholic theologians in your list. I would agree with Augustine being number one: his 'City of God' is a masterpiece. In his writing "On Faith and Works" he condemns the notion salvation by faith alone.
Thank you for the comment. I have read "On Faith and Works", though it was a while ago. I don't remember him arguing that. No doubt he references James 2, however, that is not a text the Reformed Tradition has a problem with. Do you remember the direct reference?
@@SimplyReformed The following is from "Faith and Works": “Let us now consider the question of faith. In the first place, we feel that we should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved". - St. Augustine, "On Faith and Works", 14:21. 413 AD. “…if one can obtain eternal life without keeping the commandments, by faith alone, which without works is dead. And then, too, how will the Lord be able to say to those whom He will place on His left hand: Go into the everlasting fire, which was prepared for the devil and his angels? For it is evident that He rebukes them, not because they did not believe in Him, but because they did not perform good works”. - St. Augustine, "On Faith and Works", 15:25, 413 AD.
@@GR65330 Then when do people come to life in the Spirit? Is it after they have done enough works? Jesus said, "you must be born again". People have to be born of the Spirit, to have spiritual life. Good works follow as well as Sanctification and it is God who brings this about. That is the new life in Christ, but we must first be alive in the Spirit. Justification comes first, because only then, are we adopted into the family of God, and then the power and grace of God works in our lives. We did not work our way into life in the beginning, and we do not work our way into Spiritual life either. God saves us, we do not save ourselves. Good works and holy living are the fruit of our new nature and it is progressive as we grow into maturity in the faith. Some may be truly saved, but may not live long enough to do a lot of good work. Are they then not saved? No, they are saved, because they have faith in Christ. Let God be the judge, for only He really knows who HIs people are, because He knew them before the world began.
@@gordoncrawley5826 We are born from above (again) by water and Spirit (John 3:5): which, of course is baptism (Romans 6:1-10). Good works follows in what Jesus taught in Mathew 25:32-46; corporal acts of mercy. There is no set amount on this but probably as long as we are able to do these works. So, we are saved by grace through faith starting with baptism, but we are required to show love of our neighbor by doing corporal acts of mercy.
I have and I am strongly Amill and reject Postmill and strongly reject Dominionism. I actually believe in Rom 13, 1Peter 2, that Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, and that the church must be apolitical and not promote Christian Nationalism. So, though I do enjoy listening to Wilson, I reject his political theology for the church.
@@SimplyReformed less so Perkins but love Augustine. Coming from South Africa,saw how Calvinism was used by the church to justify Apartheid. Love your posts and extensive knowledge.
The least among you are the greatest in the Kingdom of God. UNLESS you become like a child, you cannot enter the Kingdom of God. Who do you think now is the greatest theologians of all time?
With the exception of Aquinas (and maybe Bernard - though Calvin really liked him), the early Protestant theologians would have agreed that such men as Augustine, Athanasius and Anselm were great theologians.
Rev. T. Aquinas', O.P. questions preceding his theology is so annoying. That Socratic format is like the London fog that obstructs the view of his dogmatic theology. That annoying fog is an unnecessary barrier to grasping the clarity of Aquinas' ideas. Bishop Augustin employs simple sentence structures. Yet, a single sentence is 25 lines long. The aftermath is a salad of numerous subjects in one sentence. The ideas are great. But the format is exhausting. Another flaw is the repeated rhetorical posture of speaking in double negatives. That's like a backhanded swing of a tennis racket. It's an unnecessary entanglement that prevents seeing the clarity of his theological logic. Both Augustin and Aquinas are exceptional theologians. Yet, both thinkers should have learned the rhetoric of writing with a direct declaration of an idea. Hence, their communication chaos diminishes their status as brilliant theologians. Adam Young
The Summa Theologica does take a bit to get use too and I do agree with the Reformers concern about scholasticism. Augustine, however, I find to be a very enjoyable read. He does make you think and his writing skills are amazing.
Had men in the ancient eras humbled their selves to admit ... "We don't have answers. We just have questions" ... the haughty word theologian would not even exist ... and neither would religious wars have existed and continued to this day. Humans are the only animals that tend to be foolish to such an extreme. Theology will be a bore Come good Christians … own a Jew We will play that game with you We’ll tell you what you long to hear That a god will hold you dear Bring your money and your brain That we will train for our domain We will teach you how to fight To defend with all your might As theologians we are proud That you follow us and preach so LOUD There’ll come a day when you will see We lied to you … you will agree You’ll see that Jesus was a myth As were all saviors meant to lift To dominate emotions high And take them soaring to the sky When that day comes and come it will You’ll free your selves from our swill You will choose to fight no more Theology will be a bore June VanDerMark July 25, 2013
Thank you for the post, however, I find it quite dogmatic and confusing. Question, do you dogmatically believe that God has not objectively spoken? Do you even believe that God exists?
@@SimplyReformed My belief is that the universe in one form or another, always existed ... no creator or plan involved ... and that suffering of all forms of life ... always was ... and is ... natural. For theologians to have insinuated that humans were the main reason that a creator of the universe existed ... should always have been perceived as being nothing other than a joke.
@@SimplyReformed Theologians taught that showing even the least bit of doubt that a god existed ... could mean eternal damnation for one's soul. That teaching resulted in humans being terrified to ask questions of the dogmas that the theologians taught. That left theologians with all the power, to make up any fly by night stories that appealed to their overactive imaginations, and get away with it ... because the followers were so utterly terrified of the supposed WRATH of "god." Those theologians were (and are) NOT nice men.
@@SimplyReformed I just revised what I sent to you a few moments ago. Whether they take the title of theologian or minister, rabbi, priest, or imam ... in order to preach, they all want followers to believe they know what the supposed god is "thinking." It all started out with ordinary men taking the lofty title of theologians for their personal USE. They taught that showing even the least bit of doubt that a god existed ... could mean eternal damnation for wicked souls. That teaching resulted in humans being terrified to ask questions of the dogmas that the theologians taught. And that left theologians with all the power, to make up any fly by night stories that appealed to their overactive imaginations, and get away with it ... because the followers were so utterly terrified of the supposed WRATH of "god." It's up to you to decide what you believe. I decided at age 70 to leave all religious chatter behind. I'm now 83 years of age, and at peace with the idea that the universe in one form or another always existed ... no creator or plan ... and that suffering of all forms of life ... always was ... and is ... natural.
The following would be a humble attitude, but it would be an insurmountable problem for theologians and all other members of clergy. “I always avoid prophesying beforehand, because it is a much better policy to prophesy after the event has already taken place.” Winston Churchill
@@SimplyReformed Only theologians are allowed to write what the creator said. lol ... Apparently they were the only ones with high enough value TO the creator, to be ABLE to HEAR those messages, and pass them on to spiritually illiterate "followers." Of course the creator decided to also make sure that the theologians received the BIG MONEY ... not FROM the creator ... but from the followers. If you don't mind me asking ... and even if you do mind ... as the creator of the universe ... what was your reason for not having any Pentecostal theologians "on your list?" From my perception ... to leave any group of devotees out of the picture ... seems a bit unjust.
@@SimplyReformed Objective fashion? People believe that they saw Jesus on the bark of a tree, or on a pizza, or in the clouds ... etc. Did you ever see the Russian second coming of Jesus ... Vissarian? He wrote his own version of the bible, which I believe he called "The Last Testament. Apparently, he's in prison now, where miracles "don't seem to count." He had lots of followers. You might be interested in the following, if you haven’t viewed and listened to it before. Cults … one and all. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-W2Cv5hZfOmk.html
Theologians=theorists. To get beyond theory, beyond Churchianity, study the writings of Paramahansa Yogananda. Delve into his organization, Self-Realization Fellowship.
